Browsing by Author "Vlieland, Theodora P.M. Vliet"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Evaluating the participation of junior members and patient and healthcare professionals representatives in EULAR task forces: results from an international surveyPublication . Juge, Pierre-Antoine; Kragstrup, Tue Wenzel; Perez-Garcia, Luis Fernando; Frãzao-Mateus, Elsa; Makri, Souzi; Boyd, Peter; Primdahl, Jette; Ferreira, Ricardo J. O.; Vlieland, Theodora P.M. Vliet; Ndosi, Mwidimi; Kiltz, Uta; Landewé, Robert; Lauper, Kim; de Hooge, ManoukObjective: European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task forces (TF) requires participation of ≥2 junior members, a health professional in rheumatology (HPR) and two patient research partners for the development of recommendations or points to consider. In this study, participation of these junior and representative members was compared with the one of traditional TF members (convenor, methodologist, fellow and expert TF members). Methods: An online survey was developed and emailed to previous EULAR TF members. The survey comprised multiple-choice, open-ended and 0-100 rating scale (fully disagree to fully agree) questions. Results: In total, 77 responded, 48 (62%) women. In total, 46 (60%) had participated as a junior or representative TF member. Most junior/representative members reported they felt unprepared for their first TF (10/14, 71%). Compared with traditional members, junior/representative members expressed a significantly higher level of uncertainty about their roles within the TF (median score 23 (IQR 7.0-52.0) vs 7 (IQR 0.0-21.0)), and junior/representative members felt less engaged by the convenor (54% vs 71%). Primary factors that facilitated interaction within a TF were experience, expertise and preparation (54%), a supportive atmosphere (42%) and a clear role (12%). Conclusion: Juniors, patients and HPR experience various challenges when participating in a EULAR TF. These challenges differ from and are generally less pronounced than those experienced by traditional TF members. The convenor should introduce the participants to the tasks, emphasise the value of their contributions and how to prepare accordingly for the TF meeting.
- Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature reviewPublication . Sekhon, Mandeep; de Thurah, Annette; Fragoulis, George E.; Schoones, Jan; Stamm, Tanja A.; Vlieland, Theodora P.M. Vliet; Esbensen, Bente Appel; Lempp, Heidi; Bearne, Lindsay; Kouloumas, Marios; Pchelnikova, Polina; Swinnen, Thijs Willem; Blunt, Chris; Ferreira, Ricardo J. O.; Carmona, Loreto; Nikiphorou, ElenaObjective: To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. Results: Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.